1. QRM, IRB, and QRF Differences Explained
DOC/733

2. QRM - Quality Review Methods
The sequence
QRM - Quality Review Methods
IRB – Institutional Review Board
QRF – Quality Review Final

3. QRM - Quality Review OF Method
Following approval of the proposal chapters (chapters 1, 2, and 3) by your committee, your initial review submission will be to QRM.
QRM focuses on the academic issues —specifically, how well each of the elements, including your program, the study problem, purpose, research questions, the method, and the design of the proposal, are aligned.

4. QRM DCRS
The QRM reviews for the following items on the Dissertation Criteria Rating Scale (DCRS):
Quality Review - Proposal
DOMAIN ID
3.1
Domain III: Design and Logic
Not at All
Somewhat
Well
Very Well
N/A
3.1.A
The study method and design are described in detail and unambiguously.
3.1.B
There is a coherent, direct alignment among the topic, research questions, site, population, method, design, collection, analyses, presentation, and interpretation.
3.1.C
The design and logic are dependent on, directly aligned with, and appropriate to the problem under investigation.
Overall Observations of Design and Logic:
3 COMMENTS
Last revised PA

5. IRB – Institutional Review Board
Following QRM approval your proposal must be submitted to IRB.
IRB focuses on human protection issues —
including upholding the federal guidelines for
protected classes of potential research participants.

6. IRB DCRS The IRB reviews for the following items on the DCRS:
Domain VIII: Ethics in Reporting
Not at All
Somewhat
Well
Very Well
N/A
Issues germane to the transparency and ethics of reporting are clearly described. All relevant ethical considerations involved in design, data collection, analysis, and reporting are explicitly addressed
All relevant informed consent issues are clearly described
All relevant confidentiality issues including data maintainence are clearly described
Incentives for participation and potential ethical implications are described
Reporting of research reflects the highest standards of ethical practice both with respect to human participants and with respect to the execution of professional conduct and judgment in research
Study approval in accordance with an Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Reporting on research and findings are presented in a way that honors consent agreements with human participants and any other agreements with respect to gaining access to research sites or data
Reporting includes a description of any potential conflicts of interest or biases of the researcher that may have influenced or could have the appearance of influencing the research, along with a description of how they were managed in the conduct of the study.
Reporting of research is accurate and attention is given to ensure that there are no omissions or inclusions of information that are false or that fabricate, mislead, or misrepresent how the research or analyses were done.
The data or empirical materials relevant to the conclusions are maintained in a way that a qualified researcher with a copy of the relevant data and description of the analysis procedures could reproduce the analysis or trace the trail of evidence leading to the author's conclusions.
Overall Observations of Ethics in Reporting:

7. QRF - Quality Review Final
Following IRB approval, data collection and analysis, development of the final chapters (typically chapters 4 and 5), and approval by your committee, you will submit to QRF.
QRF focuses on alignment and academic issues of the entire dissertation (typically chapters 1-5). Alignment includes your topic-to-degree and the topic to the research design.

8. QRF – Quality Review Final
In addition to reviewing for alignment and APA issues, the QRF reviews for the following items on the DCRS:
Domain VIb: Analysis and Interpretation - Qualitative Method
Not at All
Somewhat
Well
Very Well
N/A
The process of developing the descriptions, claims, and interpretations is clearly described and illustrated. The description makes it possible to follow the course of decisions about the pattern descriptions, claims, and interpretations from the beginning to the end of the analysis process. Sufficient detail is included to make the process transparent and engender confidence that the results are warranted.
Evidence is given that serves as a warrant for each claim. The sources of evidence and the strength and variety of evidence supporting each claim are described. Claims should be illustrated with concrete examples and descriptions of the social context in which they occurred are provided. If a warranted claim entails a generalizing statement (e.g., of typicality), it is supported with evidence of its relative frequency.
Qualifications and conditions are specified; significant counter-examples are reported.
Practices used to develop and enhance the warrant for the claims are described, including the search for disconfirming evidence and alternative interpretations of the same evidence. Significant limitations due, for instance, to insufficient or conflicting evidence.
Interpretative commentary related to how and why the patterns described may have occurred; the social, cultural, or historical context in which they occurred; how they related to one another; how they relate to (support or challenge) theory and findings from previous research; and what alternative claims or counter-claims were considered is included.
Overall Observations of Analysis and Interpretation: